Metrolink Second City Crossing

[freetoview33]

Although knowing metrolink I wouldn't be surprised if we did see trams over the whole of 2CC by the end of the year

 

[miami]

Although knowing metrolink I wouldn't be surprised if we did see trams over the whole of 2CC by the end of the year

They do seem to finish work remarkably early. One wonders if they simply pad the estimates so everyone is impressed when they beat them. Perhaps they have some Scottish blood in them?

Kirk: Have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?
Scotty: Certainly, sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?

 

[edwin_m]

They do seem to finish work remarkably early. One wonders if they simply pad the estimates so everyone is impressed when they beat them. Perhaps they have some Scottish blood in them?

Known in management-speak as "under-promising and over-delivering". Or more crudely you'd probably be more likely to recommend a builder if they say they need three weeks and finish in two, than if they say they only need a week but also end up needing a fortnight!

However, some of the early Phase 3 Metrolink routes were opened several months late - largely due to issues with signalling rather than civils. So they are probably quite cautious in predicting the later ones.

 

[WatcherZero]

Testing of signalling on 2cc is scheduled for late this year with line opening early next year. Original sceduled completion date was summer next year.

 

[miami]

Known in management-speak as "under-promising and over-delivering". Or more crudely you'd probably be more likely to recommend a builder if they say they need three weeks and finish in two, than if they say they only need a week but also end up needing a fortnight!

And it works occasionally. If you do it all the time though people take that into expectation.

 

[freetoview33]

Like with the additional trams, they had funding so managed to get them in one order to get them cheaper and it means additional capacity at an earlier date. I think they have been very lucky with funding so why not put the money in and start getting a return earlier? I can't see the Trafford Line being quite as fast as surely 2CC will be finished before building starts on that line. And who knows about future lines!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If TfGM are correct with "approximately nine months" still needed to complete the missing gap along Princess Street, how does that now affect their original date of having the 2CC line as a fully functioning entity?

 

[Altfish]

If TfGM are correct with "approximately nine months" still needed to complete the missing gap along Princess Street, how does that now affect their original date of having the 2CC line as a fully functioning entity?

I was at a TfGM presentation and they reckoned that everything was to programme. St Peter's Sq. will open again at end of August after the second blockade during the summer holidays.
The infrastructure for 2CC will be complete in December 2016 and then a short period of testing to follow. So, I suspect an early 2017 opening. Which IIRC is what they said at the start.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder this thread is about Metrolink Second City Crossing. Please use other threads (or make one) to discuss anything else.

Like with the additional trams, they had funding so managed to get them in one order to get them cheaper and it means additional capacity at an earlier date. I think they have been very lucky with funding so why not put the money in and start getting a return earlier? I can't see the Trafford Line being quite as fast as surely 2CC will be finished before building starts on that line. And who knows about future lines!

Please use Manchester Metrolink Trafford Line to discuss this further. Thanks

 

[familyguy99]

First gauge testing took place between Cross St and Princess St on early hours for Thursday 1st December.

First test tram runs along Metrolink’s new Second City Crossing

Metrolink began testing trams on the new section of the route between the new-look St Peter’s Square tram stop and Exchange Square stop in the early hours of Thursday morning (1 December).

The transformational Second City Crossing, due to open to passengers early next year, will allow Metrolink to run more frequent tram services through the city centre and across the 93-stop network.

The new line – which connects the expanded St Peter’s Square stop via Princess Street and Cross Street with Exchange Square and Victoria Station – will also allow greater operational flexibility and improve service reliability.

Anyone who lives in, works in or visits the city is also being reminded to be aware of trams in the area as testing continues in the coming weeks.

Transport for Greater Manchester’s Metrolink Director, Peter Cushing, said: “This is an exciting time as we gear up to open this new line through the heart of the city early next year.

“After the busy festive period we’ll continue the testing and commissioning process to check all the infrastructure, and ensure drivers undertake training to familiarise themselves with the new route.

“As we prepare to open the line there will be changes to some local road layouts and further tram testing, so I’d urge pedestrians and all road users to be mindful and aware when travelling in the area.”

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pages/news.aspx?newsID=424

Also video by TFGM was posted on YouTube showing tram on Cross St.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCdEb6pEeEQ

 

[Polarbear]

Is there any further information suggesting when the second city crossing will open for public service?

I assume testing has continued throughout December?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although knowing Metrolink I wouldn't be surprised if we did see trams over the whole of 2CC by the end of the year

Another New Year Resolution of 2016 that fell by the wayside...:cry:

 

[snowball]

I assume testing has continued throughout December?

I don't think it has. It will get going again shortly.

 

[WatcherZero]

They didn't want to do commissioning while the markets were running and roads packed.

 

[snowball]

Driver training has been proceeding using a simulator.

 

[Polarbear]

They didn't want to do commissioning while the markets were running and roads packed.

Hmmm..strange? They won't have a choice next year when they'll be running a live tram service.

 

[Ianno87]

Hmmm..strange? They won't have a choice next year when they'll be running a live tram service.

But the locals will have got more used to trams running over the coming year, rather than 'jumping in at the deep end'. Plus drivers attempting to learn a new route also don't really want to be simultaneously dealing with the stress of a very busy environment at the same time - the route is much quieter outside of market season.

 

[andyb2706]

Another New Year Resolution of 2016 that fell by the wayside...:cry:

As far as I am aware they never stated that a public service would commence in December. It was that construction would be completed in December and then testing would commence. It was always expected to commence public operations in 2017.

 

[nerd]

Hmmm..strange? They won't have a choice next year when they'll be running a live tram service.

St Peter's Square will be far the busiest and most complex stop on the system; what TfGM would wish to avoid would be a repeat of their experience when Cornbrook was first converted to TMS; when there were continual 'signal failures' at Corbrook that effectively paralysed the entire system. SPS would be worse.

As I understand it; the TMS issue at Cornbrook was exacerbated in that all the SPAS beacons - when triggered - forced a shut-down and re-boot of every signal in the junction; imposing a delay of half-an-hour or more while this was done. Just because a driver had stopped a few inches over the line.

So they need to have all the potential glitches of TMS and SPAS worked through and prepared for. Since neither the TMS nor SPAS implemenations have yet fully been accepted; that necessarily implies that the line could not open for business for several weeks - markets or no.

 

[TC60054]

St Peters Square will be far the busiest and most complex stop on the system; what TfGM would wish to avoid would be a repeat of their experience when Cornbrook was first converted to TMS; when there were continual 'signal failures' at Corbrook that effectively paralysed the entire system. SPS would be worse.

As I understand it; the TMS issue at Cornbrook was exacerbated in that all the SPAS beacons - when triggered - forced a shut-down and re-boot of every signal in the junction; imposing a delay of half-an-hour or more while this was done. Just because a driver had stopped a few inches over the line.

So they need to have all the potential glitches of TMS and SPAS worked through and prepared for. Since neither the TMS nor SPAS implemenations have yet fully been accepted; that necessarily implies that the line could not open for business for several weeks - markets or no.

You would assume that Metrolink have used the issues at Cornbrook as a learning curve to ensure that future implementation does not end up with the same result.

 

[nerd]

You would assume that Metrolink have used the issues at Cornbrook as a learning curve to ensure that future implementation does not end up with the same result.

crossing fingers and toes.

The planned sequence of service patterns over the coming year do appear to have been designed to build up traffic through SPS gradually; with the key Airport Line service only being extended to Victoria once Network Rail have finally demonstrated full TMS functionality at Victoria. So, initially, volumes through SPS will only be increasing by 5 tph (East Didsbury - Rochdale); then an extra 5 tph (Airport - Victoria) when TMS is fully funcitonal; followed by all switch round between 2CC and 1CC, when the new franchise comes in. Followed in the medium term by increasing the Airport Line frequency to 10 tph; and finally adding the extra 5 tph Trafford Line - Crumpsall services.

That will then be an awful lot of tram services though; all of whom will have to run over a single path westbound across the Peter Street traffic lights. Any recurrent glitches in either signalling or driver operations could result in serious risk of continual severe episodes of disruption across the whole city centre traffic system.

 

[theshillito]

That will then be an awful lot of tram services though; all of whom will have to run over a single path westbound across the Peter Street traffic lights. Any recurrent glitches in either signalling or driver operations could result in serious risk of continual severe episodes of disruption across the whole city centre traffic system.

Third city crossing coming soon then?

 

[Chester1]

Third city crossing coming soon then?

A third city crossing has actually been talked about by the council and the combined authority! The consensus seems to be a third tram route is impractical therefore a rail tunnel would be neccessary, which would be a huge project. It would be at high risk of ending up like the 70s Picc-Vic tunnel project. Extra tracks could be put alongside Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens / Market Street with a moderate spend but the capacity improvement would be fairly small.

 

[nerd]

A third city crossing has actually been talked about by the council and the combined authority! The consensus seems to be a third tram route is impractical therefore a rail tunnel would be neccessary, which would be a huge project. It would be at high risk of ending up like the 70s Picc-Vic tunnel project. Extra tracks could be put alongside Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens / Market Street with a moderate spend but the capacity improvement would be fairly small.

Indeed; the most recent documents specify a tunnel - if one were built - as being used for metro-type operations. Most likely it would run from underground platforms in Piccadilly, under the city centre northwestwards, to emerge around Salford Uni; and might therefore link the Hadfield/Glossop and Hazel Grove commuter rail services with those towards Atherton/Wigan and Bolton.

Very much dependent on continued long-term growth in city centre employment.

 

[rebmcr]

Indeed; the most recent documents specify a tunnel - if one were built - as being used for metro-type operations. Most likely it would run from underground platforms in Piccadilly, under the city centre northwestwards, to emerge around Salford Uni; and might therefore link the Hadfield/Glossop and Hazel Grove commuter rail services with those towards Atherton/Wigan and Bolton.

Very much dependent on continued long-term growth in city centre employment.

"Crossrail M"?

 

[Altfish]

Is there any further information suggesting when the second city crossing will open for public service?

I assume testing has continued throughout December?

I walked the south end of the line today and the infrastructure appears complete. Although there were a few workmen doing minor road reinstatement works.
As has been said, driver training is being done by simulator, the new track length is probably only about 1/2mile.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if it is not open in the next month.

Running in time for the Beer Festival would be good, though that's only a week and a half away.

 

[Chester1]

Indeed; the most recent documents specify a tunnel - if one were built - as being used for metro-type operations. Most likely it would run from underground platforms in Piccadilly, under the city centre northwestwards, to emerge around Salford Uni; and might therefore link the Hadfield/Glossop and Hazel Grove commuter rail services with those towards Atherton/Wigan and Bolton.

Very much dependent on continued long-term growth in city centre employment.

Hazel Grove services already interworked with Bolton services. Atherton is not on the electrification shortlist and so will be interworked with other diesel services. The Glossop/New Mills/Rose Hill routes have spare capacity for more frequent services. The big bottlenecks are Stockport viaduct and the Airport line. In 2033 HS2 free up 2 fast train paths through Stockport and if the Airport station goes ahead and shuttle services run to Piccadily many paths to the airport would be freed up allowing some services to be diverted. Greater Manchester needs smaller projects and HS2 (and 3), not a third city crossing.

I walked the south end of the line today and the infrastructure appears complete. Although there were a few workmen doing minor road reinstatement works.
As has been said, driver training is being done by simulator, the new track length is probably only about 1/2mile.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if it is not open in the next month.

Running in time for the Beer Festival would be good, though that's only a week and a half away.

I very much doubt TfGM will want to start a new service just before a beer festival! Too many drunk people unused to trams opperating on the route.

 

[WatcherZero]

3rd route would need to link North Westerly to easterly routes so wouldn't really benefit from a third north-south alignment, meanwhile a new east-west alignment would have to have at grade crossing of the existing two leading to potential gridlock or heavy tram congestion so tunnel is becoming more and more favoured solution. Not the only potential east-west tunnelling project as well as NPR phase 2 is leaning towards a Liverpool-Leeds directly through Manchester tunnel after phase 1 of using HS2 Airport tunnel with a turnback or underground loop. The other work concerns relocating closer to HS2 and expanding the number of platforms at Piccadilly Metrolink station via a new diveunder London Road and station approach rather than at grade crossing. Atherton and Southport/Kirkby line is 3rd on the Tier 1 electrification priority list.

I would say 3rd or 4th week of this month likely for starting daytime 2cc testing/opening. Drivers already being trained in simulators.

 

[nerd]

Hazel Grove services already interworked with Bolton services. Atherton is not on the electrification shortlist and so will be interworked with other diesel services. The Glossop/New Mills/Rose Hill routes have spare capacity for more frequent services. The big bottlenecks are Stockport viaduct and the Airport line. In 2033 HS2 free up 2 fast train paths through Stockport and if the Airport station goes ahead and shuttle services run to Piccadily many paths to the airport would be freed up allowing some services to be diverted. Greater Manchester needs smaller projects and HS2 (and 3), not a third city crossing.

TfGM anticipate taking over franchising of all commuter rail services into Greater Manchester; and converting them into one of three general models of operation:

- tram/train: likely Rose Hill Marple and orbital routes into the Airport from Stockport. Probably run using light rail units similar in length to current doubled M5000s, and run on surface at a frequency of 5 or 10 services per hour throughout the day

- metro-style; likely Atherton/Wigan and Hadfield/Glossop plus others. Likely run using similar units to tram-train, but in longer trains and hence requiring a tunnel to traverse the city centre. Frequencyn at least 4 services per hour throughout the day.

- regional rail services; likely commuter stoppers along main regional intercity routes - Macclesfield, Crewe, Warrington, St Helens, Preston, Calder Valley, Huddersfield, New Mills. Likely frequency at least 2 services per hour; with much longer (and faster) trains than for the metro-style services.

The proposal for a metro-style conversion of commuter lines appears to have arisen once it became apparent that there was unlikely to be room to fit an additonal cross-city line street-level line specifically for linking tram-train services from Wigan through the Glossop (which had been envisaged in the original tram-train strategy); while the Oxford Road viaduct had insufficient capacity to carry through services at the required higher frequency. But then, if such a tunnel were to be built, it would be logical to use it as a common tunnel for all metro-style services.

Underlying this is the realisation that Metrolink could eventually run up against strict physical limitations; doubled services cannot exceed 56m in length; and there can be no more than 50 paths per hour running east-west through the city centre (25 each on 1CC and 2CC). Overall that possibly limits total patronage to around 75m per year (or maybe 50,000 commuters per day). If the city centre grows beyond that; extra capacity will have to come from vastly increasing frequency along cross-city rail routes - which in turn cannot be achieved within the limitations of the Oxford Road viaduct.

In respect of commuter services, the big bottleneck is not so much the Stockport Viaduct and Airport line as Salford Crescent. Greater Manchester is likely to need greatly enhanced capacity for rail services into Bolton and Wigan (both of which are realistically a bit far from Manchester centre for Metrolink). But with regional and international rail services into the Airport also running through Salford Crescent (which is itself a major travel generator), expansion of Wigan and Bolton commuter services to metro frequency is currently precluded. Unless TfGM build a tunnel for them.

 

[Chester1]

Transpennine services could run permanently via Golborne if the capacity was needed. Salford Cresant is nearly full in terms of frequency but there is plenty of capacity for growth through platform extensions and longer rolling stock. The planned frequency post electrification does not need increasing. Stockport viaduct is a bottleneck that prevents new services. The mid Cheshire line could support new stations and electrification between Altrincham and Stockport, the Middlewich freight line could be used for passenger services and a limited stop fast service from at least Northwich to Manchester would be popular. In addition a Stockport-Victoria service would be via Denton would be plausible if there were spare paths. I think Northern Hub squeezes in extra Manchester-Sheffield/Hazel Grove paths but nothing else.

I would like to see a third city crossing but I doubt that funding would be likely, especially if HS3 / NPR happens.